Human Rights: Western Cultural Imperialism? Flashcards
arguments suggesting that human rights are a form of Western cultural imperialism
rise in humanitarian interventions, many of which have been for selfish reasons (human rights have been used as a facade for exploiting and controlling other states)
spreading Western values to non-Western cultures without taking into account the history, culture or traditions of those countries
not all states are equally accountable under ‘human rights’ based law, Western cultures are not held to the same standard
arguments suggesting that human rights are NOT a form of Western cultural imperialism
humanitarian interventions for benevolent motives, to save lives, etc
human rights should be spread, there is no excuse for the oppression and persecution of any group of people
spreading Western values to non-Western cultures without taking into account the history, culture or traditions of those countries
forcible humanitarian intervention assumes that there are universal moral absolutes that unite the world, yet Western interventions in order to establish these values in other countries could equally be seen as a form of cultural imperialism
the right of a state to determine its own policies is at the core of what it is to be a state as well as a defining feature of state sovereignty
nothing is more controversial within a state, especially a democratic state, than foreign interference in the affairs of another state
there is often a strong feeling that countries should ‘keep their noses’ out of others’ affairs, whether they are foreign politicians, judges or the media
Lindsey Sandiford – In December 2012 at Indonesian court convicted Lindsey Sanderford of drug smuggling she had arrived at Bali airport with 4.8 kg of cocaine in her suitcase
She had subsequently cooperated with the police and during the trial expressed remorse for what she had done her defence lawyers argued that she had been pressured into carrying the drugs because of threats to her family
in 2013 however a panel of judges sentenced her to death by firing squad
The verdict caused widespread shock and disbelief Sanderford is local MP Martin Horwood expressed out rage the days of the death-penalty ought to be passed this is not the way that a country that now values democracy and human rights should really be behaving UK newspapers were similarly indignant reminding the reader is that Sandyford was both the mother and a grandmother and a pawn in the hands of more experienced drug dealers and traffickers
The foreign office made representations to the Indonesian government as did former UK Prime Minister David Cameron the anti-death penalty pressure group retrieve retrieve reprieve took up Sandfords case arguing that as a vulnerable individual the case demonstrates the barbarity of the death-penalty
In 2016 Sandyford celebrated her 60th birthday in prison with the threat of the firing squad still looming over her since the Indonesian Supreme Court had rejected all appeals for mercy a month later three Nigerians and Indonesians were taken from death row and shot for drug smuggling
However the out rage was mainly restricted to the UK Indonesian judges presiding over Sandyford skeates have so far rejected appeals for clemency arguing that her actions deliberately undermined the countries war against drugs
It is impossible to estimate just how many people would have suffered because of one persons actions but such a large amount of cocaine would have had a devastating impact on society in such circumstances the severity of the crime may fully justify the use of capital punishment
The imposition of the death-penalty may also deter others from smugly potentially saving more lives indeed the Indonesian president has publicly stated that executions of drug smugglers are positive and that other countries must respect how he is dealing with the problem estimated to kill 18,000 young Indonesians a year polls suggest that most Indonesians agree with their president on this principle
drugs are huge problem in Indonesia which killed around 18,000 a year and her actions would’ve had a devastating impact on society
The case seems to be specific to Indonesian culture where drugs are particularly serious issue this seems to have left the courts to place the rights of society to be free from harm over the rights of the individual specific cultures seem to determine rights e.g. in the UK the death-penalty does not exist
Human rights are meant to be universal and as not everyone follows the same religion they cannot be determined based on religious principles they are a more secular concern that can widely apply to everyone but there can be other rights specific to different religions although these would not be human rights As religious rights cannot be universally applied because many people follow many different religions
It seems to be possible to have an international standard of human rights on a western scale but the whole global community will not be able to achieve consensus as illustrated by the Lindsey Sandyford case due to the numerous cultural values and practices that define how people are treated in different countries even if a consensus was reached it could not be in forced because of the system of international anarchy and the fact that the state is sovereign
On one hand human rights are best determined by the independent sovereign state because the sovereign state understands its people best and should be able to determine the workings of the country
This case demonstrates how ‘human rights’ are often used to force non-Western cultures to accept Western values when these values may not be appropriate for their country – it shows the West trying to spread their values in the name of human rights, without taking into account the culture of Indonesia
Western values and human rights should be spread because regimes and states should not be able to take away rights and mistreat their citizens in the name of sovereignty
These values should be spread because regimes and states should not be able to take away rights and mistreat their citizens in the name of sovereignty
There are some cultural variations but overall, everyone should receive equal treatment under the law and states should not be allowed to oppress certain groups in society in the name of ‘sovereignty’ – in these cases, spreading the Western values of equality and fairness in the name of human rights is not a negative thing
e.g. women in Saudi Arabia were not allowed to drive for years, the ban has only recently been lifted
Atefeh Rajabi Sahaaleh was an Iranian girl who was executed on charges of adultery and “crimes against chastity”
she was arrested after being raped by a 51 year old man — according to Islamic Sharia law, she was convicted for “crimes against chastity” based on her admission, which was obtained through torture, that she repeatedly had sex with a 51-year-old married man
she was publicly hanged from a crane in 2004 and the judge in her case allegedly also applied the noose himself
there is no justification for the treatment of women and girls like this, no matter what culture it occurs in
since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the legal code has been based on Islamic Shari’a law
all sexual relations that occur outside a traditional, heterosexual marriage (sodomy or adultery) are illegal and no legal distinction is made between consensual and nonconsensual sodomy
homosexual relations that occur between consenting adults in private are a crime and carry a maximum punishment of death, while forced homosexual relations (rape) often result in execution
some human rights activists and opponents of the Iranian regime claim that between 4000 and 6000 gay men and lesbians have been executed in Iran for crimes related to their sexual orientation since 1979
not all states are equally accountable, Western hypocrisy
human rights are not upheld by the West yet the West uses ‘human rights’ as a justification for intervening within another state, despite not adhering to these rights themselves – cultural imperialism, western hypocrisy, human rights don’t seem to apply to the West in the same way as it does to non-Western cultures who are condemned for their practices while the West’s unethical practices are ignored
If an international standard of human rights is going to exist all states would need to be held equally accountable before the law and if international law is to be legitimate it must treat Allstate the same
This principle is undermined because often the more powerful states ignore international law if it is against the national interest
For examples America’s use of waterboarding the indefinite internment of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay And the rendition of terror suspects to states such as Pakistan where they could be more discreetly tortured
Human rights seem to be important to the West, but under the surface they are disregarded – the West is highly hypocritical in its stance on human rights, which suggests they have not necessarily become more important in global politics
If an international standard of human rights is going to exist all states would need to be held equally accountable before the law and if international law is to be legitimate it must treat Allstate the same
This principle is undermined because often the more powerful states ignore international law if it is against the national interest
For examples America’s use of waterboarding the indefinite internment of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay And the rendition of terror suspects to states such as Pakistan where they could be more discreetly tortured
another example of such double standards can be seen in the military coup in Chile in 1973
following an extended period of social unrest and political tension between the opposition-controlled Congress of Chile and the socialist President Salvador Allende, Allende was overthrown by the armed forces and national police
the Popular Unity government was overthrown and a military junta was established that suspended all political activity in Chile and repressed left-wing movements
Allende’s appointed army chief, Augusto Pinochet, rose to supreme power within a year of the coup, formally assuming power in late-1974
the United States government, which had worked to create the conditions for the coup (e.g. through economic warfare ordered by President Nixon), promptly recognized the junta government and supported it in consolidating power
This demonstrated a double standard as the USA was willing to support a military dictatorship that represses many rights including the freedom of speech in association to further their own national interests
Simply because they did not like their ideology they were fifth of communist expansion in what they saw as their backyard so were willing to support regimes that also anti-Communist in nature
USA preaches democracy and human rights but overthrows democratically elected government and instead supports military regimes
today, there are still claims that the USA and the West operate double standards
they claim to be defenders of human rights but there have been numerous examples of the USA using questionable techniques during war that violate human rights
EXAMPLES = Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison, British troops, covert rendition, US drone strikes
the use of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base as a detention camp for ‘unlawful combatants’ in the war against terror
as well as the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ such as waterboarding, which are widely viewed to be examples of torture
the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was also a scandal that seemed to show the hypocrisy of the USA
detainees were severely abused and maltreated in 2003 and the US authorities were accused on inflicting ‘grave breaches of humanitarian law’
British troops were implicated in the death of Baha Mousa in Basra, Iraq in 2003
they were accused of using banned interrogation methods and ‘gratuitous violence’
one soldier admitted a charge of inhumane treatment and became the first member of the British armed forces to be convicted of a war crime
in 2013, a British marine was found guilty at a court martial of executing an injured Afghan insurgent in 2011
the USA has also been accused of breaching core liberal values in the war against terror through the use of ‘covert rendition’
the US government is alleged to have unlawfully transported terrorist suspects to other countries to by-pass normal legal and human right protections
detainees were often tortured and denied legal advice and fair trials
for a country that prides itself on upholding the rule of law, such acts can be seen as utterly hypocritical
according to Intercept, Between 2012 and 2013 airstrikes in Afghanistan have killed more than 200 people of which only 35 were intended targets
During 15 month period nearly 90% of those killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets
This illustrates how innocent bystanders are killed as part of the US war on terror And how the US is willing to sacrifice innocent human lives for their own national interest
the West is meant to symbolise liberal values such as democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law
however, it is often alleged that Western countries ignore these values when dealing with other countries if its suits their national interests or if it means they will make money
there are numerous examples of occasions when UK governments have been accused of hypocrisy or double standards (e.g. arms trade)
the UK has sold armaments to Saudi Arabia that have been used against civilians in Yemen
Saudi Arabia started a military campaign in 2015 against Iranian backed-rebels in Yemen and alleged indiscriminate bombing has led to the killing of thousands of civilians and led to a humanitarian catastrophe in one of the world’s poorest countries
since 2015 the UK government has approved arms exports worth over £3.3 billion
another example of UK hypocrisy concerns the alleged Western and UK silence or inaction over human rights abuses in China due to China’s economic power
the UK government believes that it can make more progress in persuading China to respect human rights by engaging in quiet diplomacy and encouraging trade rather than taking a harder line with the potential superpower
although many argue that the UK simply doesn’t want to provoke or anger China because China is the second largest, soon to be largest, economic power
these examples demonstrate that the West does not always practise what it preaches
liberal democratic states should have more ethical policies so they can lead by example rather than contradicting themselves
